The golden frog is a small bright-yellow amphibian that lives in and around mountain streams in Panama The species is severely endangered because of a fungus that infects the frog through its skin and inhibits the frog's critical life functions, such as breathing. Conservationists have proposed a few solutions to the golden frog's fungus problem.
Bacterial Protection
First, scientists have identified a natural enemy of the fungus: a type of bacterium. This bacterium produces a chemical that kills fungal cells. Scientists think that they may be able to introduce colonies of this bacterium to the skin of golden frogs. The bacterial colonies would then protect the frogs against the fungus infection
Breeding Frogs in Captivity
Second, researchers are considering the possibility of breeding golden frogs in captivity and then releasing them in the wild to replenish wild populations The golden frog can develop disease-free in captivity; where it is isolated from the fungus When golden frogs bred in captivity are released in habitats where wild golden frogs have died out, the frogs bred in captivity will give rise to a healthy, fungus-free population.
A Natural Defense
Third, it is possible that golden frogs w川 overcome the threat posed by the fungus without human intervention. Some golden frogs have what seems to be a natural defense against the fungus. When infected, they increase their body temperature, which slows down the growth of the fungus If this ability to resist the fungal infection spreads among the golden frog population as a whole, the frog population is likely to overcome the crisis and start increasing again.
In the reading passage, the author concentrates on several solutions to protect the golden frogs' populations living in Panama against infectious fungi. However, the lecturer casts doubt on these solutions and respectively points out the problems with all the author's assertions.
Firstly, the author argues that by introducing a particular type of bacterium which is considered as the natural enemy of the fungus, we can end up shielding the frogs. Nonetheless, the lecturer challenges this idea and states that scientists have already introduced this bacterium to the frogs' skin and it turned out that frogs were protected against the infectious fungus. However, its positive effect did not last long, and only temporary protection was provided. This bacterium indeed produces a chemical that is able to attack the fungus, but it only protects the skin of frogs' colonies for a short period of time; then the protection will be stopped, and frogs are susceptible to the infection again.
Secondly, the author suggests that breeding frogs in captivity and then introducing them to their habitats can lead to disease-free populations. Nevertheless, the lecturer brings up the fact that new frogs cannot remain healthy after being released in the wild since there are other animals that are already infected by that fungus. As a result, these new populations of frogs will be infected too just after coming into contact with sick animals.
Lastly, the author asserts that frogs have a natural defense against this threat, which works through a rise in their body temperature. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this claim too and clarifies that the increase in the frogs' body temperature has the main drawback that uses up a great deal of energy, which weekends the frogs and may cause them to become ill or even die. Thus, increasing their body temperature can protect them against fungus. Nevertheless, it is not a healthy solution at all.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 604, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... the skin of frogs colonies for a short period of time; then the protection will be stopped, a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20447284345 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73305457656 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549520766773 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.9711854917 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.307692308 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0769230769 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0769230769 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228201308396 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819000338288 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0618456898796 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13972290727 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0228980897171 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.